|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mitchell Coffey
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: Re: MSNBC on Lincoln and Darwin |
 |
|
On Jun 30, 12:43 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
| Quote: |
John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Steven L. <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:40:14 -0700 (PDT), "Rodjk #613"
rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/143742
A very interesting article, but a bit parochial in its conclusion that
Lincoln was the more significant figure: unsurprisingly, Newsweek
conflates influence on the history of the US with influence on the
world at large.
Lincoln kept the United States from splitting apart into two less
powerful countries. And for the last 100 years, no nation has had a
greater influence on the world than the United States. Thus, Lincoln's
impact on the world was enormous.
Just more indirect.
World history these last 100 years would have gone VERY differently, if
the South had successfully seceded during the Civil War. "Alternate
History" sci-fi writers have had a field day working out possible
consequences of a Southern victory; see, for example, "Bring the
Jubilee" by Ward Moore.
The 20th century was truly an *American* century for the whole world.
Lincoln helped to make that possible.
Come on. Marx was far more significant for the twentieth century than
Darwin and Lincoln combined.
All these questions are silly, because history is much more complex than
we can work out. But that doesn't stop me from playing.
It's a fun game, not unlike Calvinball...
I think John has
made a good case that Marx was not more important. U.S. importance has
outlasted Marx's importance by quite a bit, so far.
You think? People in China, Russia, Nepal, Vietnam, Peru, Angola, and a
slew of other nations might beg to differ. Part of the problem here is
measuring "importance". Had America not existed, or become some kind of
social democrat state like the rest of the Europeans did eventually,
some other state would have opposed the Marxist states (probably Germany
alone or in conjunction with Britain). But Marx's influence would,
individually, remain way more important than Lincoln's.
Or, if you like political leaders, try
Queen Victoria,
What, you mean her hemophilia gene crucially weakened the Russian
monarchy at a critical point? She was hardly a political leader; Prince
Albert was more of a leader, and he didn't do much.
She didn't as an executive agent, sure, but her role in influencing the
greatest empire of all time was perhaps more significant than anything
Lincoln did. As a result the path of central Asia, Africa, the Pacific,
east Asia and an island off the south coast of Papua New Guinea were
changed immensely. Had she not been monarch (say, that silly Edward VII
had) the effect would not, I am convinced, been nearly as great.
Gladstone, Bismarck, Emperor Meiji,
Bismarck, conceivably. You will have to explain what Gladstone and Meiji
did that was so important. The Meiji Restoration was certainly
important, though not as important at the maintenance of the Union. But
it happens without Meiji, as long as there's an emperor willing to go along.
Meiji was, I understood, a moderniser (unlike prior emperors and
shoguns). As a result Japan was able to industrialise and modernise its
armed forces and thus start the expansionist policies that led to the
Pacific war.
Glastone was able to modernise the British armed forces, thus making it
able to expand its influence, and also later on to resist Germany. He
also disengaged from African expansionism, particularly the Mahdi Army
conflict. He also began the institution of regional parliament in the
Reprublic as it is now of Ireland, leading to conditions that made
independence possible.
all of whom had
equal or greater downstream effects than Lincoln, who really affected
rather minimally one country - his influence in race relations didn't
flower until much later, so he's best remembered for keeping the union
together, and I think that would have been achieved even if Lincoln
hadn't been president.
Possibly, since there would have been no secession, at least in 1860, if
he hadn't won the election. (Which is a big effect right there.) But the
south was headed either for secession or for eventual loss of their
"peculiar institution", and they weren't blind. But would federal power
have increased as much or as rapidly without Lincoln?
Hard to say. Given that the popular mood in the north was abolitionist,
which is why Lincoln was elected in the first place, it very probably
would have come up sooner or later.
Darwin's influence is greater than Lincoln's, but even he won't have his
full effect until ordinary culture assimilates the Darwinian revolution,
and that will take, I think, as long as it took for Copernicus'
revolution, around 200 years or more.
I'm not sure even that is true. Without Darwin, evolutionary biology
starts fairly soon, even if nobody notices Wallace. And evolutionary
biology's major effect on real life would seem to be its stimulus to
molecular biology.
Well there is also the very large impact it has had on non-scientific
thought. Darwin inspired many thinkers, including Peirce, Dewey, James,
Royce, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Freud, Jung, economists of the right,
economists of the left, Boltzmann, and so on. So it's rather
disingenuous to say that he had little effect on real life.
Moreover, I think that many elements of modern evolutionary biology
would have been much later without Darwin, especially the development of
comparative psychology of emotions and cognition. So Mach, Lorenz,
Piaget, Tinbergen, and so on are all later developments.
|
With little doubt, the most influential individual of the 20th century
was Gavrilo Princip.
Mitchell Coffey |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
phillip brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:10 am Post subject: Re: MSNBC on Lincoln and Darwin |
|
|
On Jul 1, 3:06 am, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Back to the Marx vs Lincoln vs Darwin debate...
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
|
Groucho was definitely funnier.
phillip brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Re: MSNBC on Lincoln and Darwin |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:11:21 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins
Mitchell Coffey <m.coffey@starpower.net> wrote in
<3491c828-f06a-47db-83cf-081df86b3ccb@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 12:43 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Steven L. <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:40:14 -0700 (PDT), "Rodjk #613"
rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/143742
A very interesting article, but a bit parochial in its conclusion that
Lincoln was the more significant figure: unsurprisingly, Newsweek
conflates influence on the history of the US with influence on the
world at large.
Lincoln kept the United States from splitting apart into two less
powerful countries. And for the last 100 years, no nation has had a
greater influence on the world than the United States. Thus, Lincoln's
impact on the world was enormous.
Just more indirect.
World history these last 100 years would have gone VERY differently, if
the South had successfully seceded during the Civil War. "Alternate
History" sci-fi writers have had a field day working out possible
consequences of a Southern victory; see, for example, "Bring the
Jubilee" by Ward Moore.
The 20th century was truly an *American* century for the whole world.
Lincoln helped to make that possible.
Come on. Marx was far more significant for the twentieth century than
Darwin and Lincoln combined.
All these questions are silly, because history is much more complex than
we can work out. But that doesn't stop me from playing.
It's a fun game, not unlike Calvinball...
I think John has
made a good case that Marx was not more important. U.S. importance has
outlasted Marx's importance by quite a bit, so far.
You think? People in China, Russia, Nepal, Vietnam, Peru, Angola, and a
slew of other nations might beg to differ. Part of the problem here is
measuring "importance". Had America not existed, or become some kind of
social democrat state like the rest of the Europeans did eventually,
some other state would have opposed the Marxist states (probably Germany
alone or in conjunction with Britain). But Marx's influence would,
individually, remain way more important than Lincoln's.
Or, if you like political leaders, try
Queen Victoria,
What, you mean her hemophilia gene crucially weakened the Russian
monarchy at a critical point? She was hardly a political leader; Prince
Albert was more of a leader, and he didn't do much.
She didn't as an executive agent, sure, but her role in influencing the
greatest empire of all time was perhaps more significant than anything
Lincoln did. As a result the path of central Asia, Africa, the Pacific,
east Asia and an island off the south coast of Papua New Guinea were
changed immensely. Had she not been monarch (say, that silly Edward VII
had) the effect would not, I am convinced, been nearly as great.
Gladstone, Bismarck, Emperor Meiji,
Bismarck, conceivably. You will have to explain what Gladstone and Meiji
did that was so important. The Meiji Restoration was certainly
important, though not as important at the maintenance of the Union. But
it happens without Meiji, as long as there's an emperor willing to go along.
Meiji was, I understood, a moderniser (unlike prior emperors and
shoguns). As a result Japan was able to industrialise and modernise its
armed forces and thus start the expansionist policies that led to the
Pacific war.
Glastone was able to modernise the British armed forces, thus making it
able to expand its influence, and also later on to resist Germany. He
also disengaged from African expansionism, particularly the Mahdi Army
conflict. He also began the institution of regional parliament in the
Reprublic as it is now of Ireland, leading to conditions that made
independence possible.
all of whom had
equal or greater downstream effects than Lincoln, who really affected
rather minimally one country - his influence in race relations didn't
flower until much later, so he's best remembered for keeping the union
together, and I think that would have been achieved even if Lincoln
hadn't been president.
Possibly, since there would have been no secession, at least in 1860, if
he hadn't won the election. (Which is a big effect right there.) But the
south was headed either for secession or for eventual loss of their
"peculiar institution", and they weren't blind. But would federal power
have increased as much or as rapidly without Lincoln?
Hard to say. Given that the popular mood in the north was abolitionist,
which is why Lincoln was elected in the first place, it very probably
would have come up sooner or later.
Darwin's influence is greater than Lincoln's, but even he won't have his
full effect until ordinary culture assimilates the Darwinian revolution,
and that will take, I think, as long as it took for Copernicus'
revolution, around 200 years or more.
I'm not sure even that is true. Without Darwin, evolutionary biology
starts fairly soon, even if nobody notices Wallace. And evolutionary
biology's major effect on real life would seem to be its stimulus to
molecular biology.
Well there is also the very large impact it has had on non-scientific
thought. Darwin inspired many thinkers, including Peirce, Dewey, James,
Royce, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Freud, Jung, economists of the right,
economists of the left, Boltzmann, and so on. So it's rather
disingenuous to say that he had little effect on real life.
Moreover, I think that many elements of modern evolutionary biology
would have been much later without Darwin, especially the development of
comparative psychology of emotions and cognition. So Mach, Lorenz,
Piaget, Tinbergen, and so on are all later developments.
With little doubt, the most influential individual of the 20th century
was Gavrilo Princip.
|
He's being given a bum rap. Everyone involved was spoiling for a war.
His assassination was just the excuse they needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike Dworetsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: Re: MSNBC on Lincoln and Darwin |
|
|
"phillip brown" <pjbrown@people.net.au> wrote in message
news:92b0f55a-8b34-45b9-a5e9-7114604f0844@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jul 1, 3:06 am, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com
wrote:
Back to the Marx vs Lincoln vs Darwin debate...
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Groucho was definitely funnier.
phillip brown
|
That was his job. Did you ever read Darwin's notes for/against marriage? I
had to dissuade someone from having it read out at his wedding. Talk about
unintentional humour.
I understand Lincoln was very fond of amusing one-liners.
Just acknowledge there is a controversy, OK?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: MSNBC on Lincoln and Darwin |
|
|
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
John Wilkins wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
....
Gladstone, Bismarck, Emperor Meiji,
Bismarck, conceivably. You will have to explain what Gladstone and
Meiji did that was so important. The Meiji Restoration was certainly
important, though not as important at the maintenance of the Union. But
it happens without Meiji, as long as there's an emperor willing to go
along.
Meiji was, I understood, a moderniser (unlike prior emperors and
shoguns). As a result Japan was able to industrialise and modernise its
armed forces and thus start the expansionist policies that led to the
Pacific war.
And it's true he was more hands-on than any of his successors. But he
was also fronting for a group of industrialists and politicians with the
same views.
No surprise there. Lincoln was fronting for a group of similar people.
I wouldn't say "fronting". Are you seriously claiming that Meiji had
more impact on the world than Lincoln? Or are you being a contrarian
just for fun.
|
Now I can't believe you'd think that of me. No, not at all. Me? Have
fun? With you? Such a slander!
[Hint: I even said that there were no rules, but I'd play anyway...]
....
| Quote: |
Moreover, I think that many elements of modern evolutionary biology
would have been much later without Darwin, especially the development of
comparative psychology of emotions and cognition. So Mach, Lorenz,
Piaget, Tinbergen, and so on are all later developments.
We'll never know. Darwin certainly did a lot. But "much later"? He
certainly didn't found ethology. It had been noticed that animals have
behavior quite a bit earlier than that.
Expression of the Emotions is the founding document of ethology. Nobody
else wrote anything remotely as good until the 20thC, and even then
without EotE they would not have done as well.
You are the historian of science; but I would have thought Fabre.
|
Important, but founding? What about Lloyd Morgan, or Henry James? There
are many good observers, but few theorists, and Darwin's book really was
a theoretical view. Until Lorenz, I don't think anyone had done as well.
But, and this is serious, I do not know that literature as well as I
might. Paul Griffiths does. I'll ask him next time I see him.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: MSNBC on Lincoln and Darwin |
|
|
John Wilkins <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote:
| Quote: |
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
...
Gladstone, Bismarck, Emperor Meiji,
Bismarck, conceivably. You will have to explain what Gladstone and
Meiji did that was so important. The Meiji Restoration was certainly
important, though not as important at the maintenance of the Union. But
it happens without Meiji, as long as there's an emperor willing to go
along.
Meiji was, I understood, a moderniser (unlike prior emperors and
shoguns). As a result Japan was able to industrialise and modernise its
armed forces and thus start the expansionist policies that led to the
Pacific war.
And it's true he was more hands-on than any of his successors. But he
was also fronting for a group of industrialists and politicians with the
same views.
No surprise there. Lincoln was fronting for a group of similar people.
I wouldn't say "fronting". Are you seriously claiming that Meiji had
more impact on the world than Lincoln? Or are you being a contrarian
just for fun.
Now I can't believe you'd think that of me. No, not at all. Me? Have
fun? With you? Such a slander!
[Hint: I even said that there were no rules, but I'd play anyway...]
...
Moreover, I think that many elements of modern evolutionary biology
would have been much later without Darwin, especially the development of
comparative psychology of emotions and cognition. So Mach, Lorenz,
Piaget, Tinbergen, and so on are all later developments.
We'll never know. Darwin certainly did a lot. But "much later"? He
certainly didn't found ethology. It had been noticed that animals have
behavior quite a bit earlier than that.
Expression of the Emotions is the founding document of ethology. Nobody
else wrote anything remotely as good until the 20thC, and even then
without EotE they would not have done as well.
You are the historian of science; but I would have thought Fabre.
Important, but founding? What about Lloyd Morgan, or Henry James? There
|
I mean, William James. Oops...
| Quote: |
are many good observers, but few theorists, and Darwin's book really was
a theoretical view. Until Lorenz, I don't think anyone had done as well.
But, and this is serious, I do not know that literature as well as I
might. Paul Griffiths does. I'll ask him next time I see him.
|
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
